If you want to fight it from within the system, you have the legal means to do so... sadly, I do not think even then it will get us anywhere, hence my rather cynical stance on the issue.
I am trying, for whatever it's worth. I just don't think it is an issue that has attained critical mass yet. Not enough people are affected yet or care enough to rein in those that want control of all the media, all the time, at all levels. Someday though. By then I hope it is not too late...
your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...
I'm not quite sure how it is relevant, but it has been dicussed numerous times before, and I believe pretty much everyone out there has their opinion on it already... Myself, I was convinced enough that I am firmly in the anti-copyright camp now. On that point, we disagree with you; let's just leave it at that.
I thought the point relevant because content producers should have some controls over the works they produce. There is no control when it becomes (literally) a free-for-all via P2P. At that point it is virtually Public Domain. I firmly believe however that copyright laws should be almost completely rewritten at this point, they are so far out of balance they've become a cultural burden now, IMO.
Well, I appreciate your time in discussing these issues with me today. It's been interesting, certainly. I guess if I could wish for one thing it would be increased awareness of these issues outside of the/. realm. I wish more people cared about the power-grabbing attempts by media companies and their cronies in government. Nothing is really going to change until then it seems.
If it can be played, it can be copied, period. I'm rather confident in my ability to find a way to counter a hardware encoding scheme one way or another, so as far as I'm concerned, the threat is only legal, not technical.
But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept? Their fair use rights slowly eroded to nothing, their hardware controlled by the media or (worse) the government. Technical, legal, it makes no difference. The usefulness of the equipment and media they own becomes...useless.
See, I think that's where the problem lies. Everybody is just looking out for themselves. "Well I don't give a **** cuz I know how to crack anything." vs. the MPAA/RIAA & legislators like Orrin Hatch who thinks it is OK to destroy the hardware of so-called infringers.
There has to be some middle ground that can be reached where WE as consumers get to legally & technically retain control of the products we own and the ability of the content producer to maintain their rights (as in copyright).
I am a big supporter of Creative Commons licensing, but even that concept can't exist without copyright law. If your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...
Where is the balance here? Hopefully it can be found before the common man finds his gear DRM'd into the ground...
> If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?
I think the answer to that question is in just about every other post. Because you are worse off after buying these products.
Tell me where I can buy a copy of a movie that will play on my linux system from my hardrive. Furthermore, if I'm paying for such a copy I want the codec that it's in and the file format to be documented and don't want to relly on one company to support it.
You can't buy such a thing. Hell you can't even buy such a thing that will go on a windows system.
Sure you can, Linspire sells a licensed DVD player for Linux. And, as far as Windows, there's PowerDVD among other software players that come bundled with the purchase of a system w/DVD drive or an OEM drive. I've never purchased either where a Windows player didn't come with the DVD drive. I must be missing your point on that...
Don't give me any such crap about stealing, I don't do p2p. I can see where people are getting quite frustrated. All I do is buy easily scratchable shiny plastic discs that I can't backup in overly bulky containers. It's no wonder people are sharing this stuff, I may go that route myself in the future.
I can see where they are getting frustrated too, but possibly for different reasons (DRM, EULA, stupid excessive copyright restrictions, etc.). Why aren't you allowed to backup DVDs? That is within your rights under fair use as I understand it (INL). Does the DMCA trump fair use in this regard? If so, why? I don't think I'm dishing out "crap" by asking these questions, or by pointing out the obvious conclusions of the "us vs. them" mentality in the P2P arena. Look, if you aren't using P2P for illegal purposes now, it is an easy bet that you wouldn't walk into a store and abscond out the door with a stack of discs, right? Then why would you want to "go that route" yourself someday via P2P? Ethically, what is the difference? Is it really a load of crap? No, it's just harder to catch and prosecute...at the moment.
Show me where folks like Orrin Hatch and the big media companies are advancing the arguments for further controlling OUR usage of OUR property without invoking copyright infringing P2P transactions. I don't think you'll find many instances where that isn't in the equation. My point is valid. They will continue to use this against all of us and the technologies that we freely employ today (for whatever purpose), who doubts that? It is the catch all excuse for taking more of our rights from us. Those who argue against this concept today (because they aren't getting caught...yet) are simply adding fuel to the power-grabbing fire. Like it or not.
Frogs in the cooks pot, he slowly turns up the heat and we don't even notice until we're collectively cooked...
So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...
In other words, you want to stay safe and within the system, and ask the rest to do the same for the sake of your safety.
I think the short answer to this would be, "why should I care?".
LOL
Good shot, except the point is: eventually it will affect you too, particularly when Digital Restrictions makes it way into the hardware levels. Then where will we be?
Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials... regardless of what you think, you _can not_ ask or order a significant portion of a population to change their habits.
Sure I can ask (who said anything about "order"?). Why not? Your actions are going to have a negative impact on technology I use for legitimate purposes. Why can't I point this out? I don't agree with the current state of copyright law, I think it is massive overkill with its term of life+75 years, etc. I think it is an affront to creativity and it is robbing the culture, is that ethical? I don't think so, not by a long shot...
Regardless, it does not matter what I think of copyright law. Do I get to break it just because I disagree with it? Your answer seems to be yes. For a lot of us, that answer is no. I'm not trying to advance my supposed sense of morality on you, I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own. Slowly but surely this is the case, and this Sony rootkit & EULA issue is a prime example. Step back for a moment and disregard the ethical issues (which you've already done according to your comments) and just look at it from the chilling effects this disregard is going to have on technology & innovation. That affects all of us, no matter where you stand on fileswapping as an ethical issue. That was my point.
You can make the assertion that nobody is going to stop you, that you are going to do what you want with what you own no matter what anybody says (even the law). "You can pry my computer from my cold dead fingers", but that cuts the other way too: "When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P." How is that right? How is that fair?
'superior ethics'? You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies. If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?
Umm, tell us again who has a sense of superiority?
So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...
It is ironic but true that your computer is now safer to download pirate copys of entertainment than to buy the authentic thing. WTF was Sony/BMG thinking? Most of us are honest!!
That is such a solid point. The whole issue is out of control. What if Sony-BMG is allowed to get away with this? What kind of precedent does it set? Will we now have to worry about every release from every media company that may follow the Sony model and employ their own variant of spy/malware-type Digital Restriction software on their CD or DVD?
An EULA for CD audio?! When I first read this stuff I could NOT believe what I was seeing! We saw the writing on the wall with CueCat (remember that nonsense?). Do we just get to expect that everything we buy will now include "instructions" on what we can & cannot do with the things that we purchase? This goes beyond killing innovation--heck, instead of selling us merchandise it seems as if we're just paying a leasing fee: the manufacturer still owns the product and gets to tell us how we can use it. Licensed audio CDs, subscription software. I think it is only the beginning. Can't wait until I am forced to buy only certain brands of gasoline for my car based on the EULA I signed when I purchase my next vehicle...
This all ties in with the honesty factor you mention. Sony (and others) simply use piracy as an excuse for this kind of awful behavior on their part. Please don't swap non-redistributable copyrighted files, if you do, you're ruining it for the rest of us!
As you can see from the links, I've been stewing over these disturbing trends for days. Years actually. Any excuse to control the consumer seems to be grabbed up immediately by the powers that be...
It *was* my favorite distro until they decided to join Red Hat in the enterprise fray. I saw the writing on the wall and now I use CentOS. I know, a Red Hat rebuild. At least there is some stability with CentOS.
What does that mean? Seriously. What are you saying? Are you implying that RHEL is less stable then CentOS? Why? How? Are you saying that you dropped SuSE because Novell is putting it up against RH in the enterprise space?
No disrespect intended but I simply do not get the point you're trying to make here.
Of course SUSE customers won't be pleased. There are many must-have desktop apps built on the KDE framework that don't have any good gtk equivalents... Gnome is way behind KDE with regards to these features.
Thank you!
I probably have close to ten different distros loaded on my HDD at any given time, and the GUI I gravitate towards is KDE. Specifically KDE on SuSE. This announcement that they are moving it to Gnome is bad news. The SuSE desktop has to be the best among the lot, and YaST is (IMO) by far the best & most complete GUI-based configuration tool I've seen.
I rebuilt my sister's box--they had Windows ME on it (groan). In addition to the (groan again) WinME reinstallation, I also set up a SuSE partition on it for them and shipped it back. When they got it, they couldn't get their modem working under WinME so they called up and asked, "What about Linux?" I talked my sister through using YaST to set up the modem and they were back on-line within a few minutes.
Since then, she has decided to stick with SuSE altogether...
When I was contemplating which distro to put on their machine, it was down to a choice of Ubuntu or SuSE. Even though I regard Ubuntu as a fine distribution, SuSE won out. The well implemented KDE interface combined with YaST made it the ideal choice for introducing them to Linux. A MS Windows-like environment and killer config tools.
I didn't RTA, but I am hoping (as has been said here) that KDE continues to be implemented in OpenSuSE.
My guess is that they are fighting over the right to allocate IP addresses, which are few while we're still using IPv4. This is a source of revenue for whoever controlls it, and practically you're giving money for "nothing", at least nothing material.
> Is this the type of thing we would see if these other parties gained control of the root servers? Pay up or no DNS for you??
It's not very difficult to set up a DNS. I predict we'd see lots of independant DNS servers springing up, similar to P2P, sharing IP addresses instead of music or videos.
Sounds reasonable I suppose. Distributed DNS with no one particular group in control. If that is the solution to the issue when politicians squabble over who is going to "control" the internet (whatever that is supposed to mean, the only thing I have ever surmised is that they mean "control" over the root servers) then the issue is moot.
The problem is that it might be a little bit broken. Remember the.xxx domain? ICANN was leaning toward allowing it. The Commerce Dept. was getting complaints (apparently from "religious-right" types), and nudged ICANN. ICANN decided not to allow the.xxx domain, for now at least.
Hmm, I don't recall this incident at the moment but I would think it would make the Bush Administration's new "War on Pornography" a lot easier for them if there were a.xxx TLD...
More to the point though, even if a new TLD was not added for whatever reason, there still wasn't a deliberate block of materials by the US govt. on-line, right? It's when actual blocking of sites for profit or politics comes into play at the ISP up to the root server level that we have a real problem I would think. Hence, the concept that SBC is going to charge or block Google (for profit) needs to be shot down pretty quickly...
Oh, come off your high horse and actually RTFA before you start on your rant. All he says is that Google/et. all shouldn't get free access to his lines. He also points out that Google's customers (us) can't very well access Google without his lines or the lines of his competitors. Unless Google is going to get into the Tier 1 business then I don't see this changing any time soon.
And, pray tell, what are the consumers paying for? What in the world is wrong with bailing from them as your ISP if they start blocking the services you want/need? What do you need them for if you can't Google?
And another thing, who says Google is getting their pipes for free? I'm sure they pay a kings ransom for their leased lines.
So... neither the consumer nor Google is getting anything from SBC for free. So I'm staying right here on my high horse thank you. This CEO is just trying to generate revenue streams out of thin air. If he implements that particular scheme, then if I were a customer (which I am not), I would walk away. Let's see how long his consumer internet services revenues last then...
I don't hate SBC, I just think this line of thought for generating revenue is a really bad idea--as his level and on up...
this comes from a guy who's "Warmoth Custom Guitar" is his "favorite guitar of all time."
yup:
1. he's a tool
2. and a child
but what else do you expect from a texan (and yes that is spelt in lower case.)
Oh Anonymous Coward thank you so much again for your insightful input, it has advanced the discussion of the issue at hand to new heights never before dreamed of. I think you may even be on the verge of solving world hunger!
Warmoth makes the best guitar necks in the world (which they do), hence SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
I live in Texas which means I must be ???, therefore SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
(sigh)
I disobeyed the first rule of Slashdot: Don't feed the trolls.
My mistake. I will desist. But please don't let that deter you--by all means, keep up your feeble attempts at taunting and/or insulting me if it makes you feel better; boosts your ego; or helps to lessen your need for mood-altering medications.
Better yet (if your limbs, so weakened by years of neglect of any physical activity other than typing, can support you) climb out of your step-momma's basement and go collect your welfare check so you can pay your ISP bill. Wouldn't want your sole purpose in life to be terminated...
See how utterly pointless it is to make attacks on people that you don't even know? No? That's ok, I understand. You'll be all right, just take some deep breaths and calm down. You've gotten yourself all worked up... There there now, see? I told you it would be ok. Here's your binky, just lay down there and take a nice long nap. That mean ol' guy talking badly about your friends at SBC won't bother you any more...
Actually, the article seems to point to this kind of behaviour existing in the US. Not the EU. Still, that's neither here nor there, as I'm sure it exists in other countries also.
Change the US and EU around in your statements and you can see exactly why the rest of the world is nervous about leaving the DNS in the hands of an organisation which is on a short leash to a governmental trade department.
However, that's a whole other story, done to death in other threads..
Do quite agree with ye though that the SBC quote seems a little heavy handed...
Actually, it's a company in the US that is trying to play this game, not the US Govt. Regardless, it did bring to mind how far this idea of the threat of blocking access as a revenue stream could extend were other parties to gain control of the root servers. To this date, I have never heard a complaint that the US govt. has tampered with the root servers to manipulate consumer access to any site. Would other entities (whomever they are) be as scrupulous in this matter were they to take over these servers. Or, would we see the scenarios I mentioned in my previous post: "Pay up or no DNS for you" or "we don't like your site, no DNS for you"?
Totally take UN and/or EU out of the scenario if you wish--substitute any organization you wish because that is not the main issue. The main issue is, "what will [insert organization name here] do if they gain control of the root servers?" Or, "why does [insert organization name here] want 'control' of these servers in the first place?"
We all know the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." If we find that [insert organization name here] is thinking along the lines of this SBC CEO then I think we could all agree that we should leave things as they are?
Why yes, yes I am, and by your spelling I see we must be in the same grade? Do you attend special ed by chance?
Thanks AC! I really appreciate your adding so much relevancy and insight to the issue being discussed. ad hominem is always so useful is working out problems in discussion.
I see this as just another step towards the balkanization of the internet.
(Why do I keep hearing Yoda's voice in the back of my mind repeating, "...begun have the clone wars" when this issue comes up?)
It certainly looks like this is the current direction and it's really frightening considering how dependent the current economy is on internet services. In my own little world I am conducting business transactions over the internet all the time. Obviously, corporations are doing so exponentially by comparison...
What is the solution to staving off this madness? Is there any comparable resolution to this in the real world that we could apply to the virtual domain? It's quite easy to identify problems, finding solutions is the more compelling challenge. (The quintessential example of this is talk radio. Always the complaining, and never any ideas on how to fix whatever it is they are whining about. I digress, but we see this occuring all the time.)
I don't have the answer myself, other then "just don't let it happen!":-|
Just another reason for me to never switch to SBC DSL. What a brilliant tactical move, I can't think of a better way to alienate your customers then by cutting off the very services that they are dispensing their funds to you to get to...
This is sure to set off a firestorm of US bashing, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this quote today was the interest in the UN and/or EU in wresting "control" of the internet from the hands of the US. Is this the type of thing we would see if these other parties gained control of the root servers? Pay up or no DNS for you??
Only in that case you (as a consumer) wouldn't have the option of punishing them for this outrageous behavior with your pocketbook by switching to another provider. You would just have to a) hope that the service provider (Google, Yahoo, whomever) would pay the piper; or b) you might simply be stuck if the service/information you wanted to access was deemed unacceptable and therefore all access to it via DNS was eliminated. (Hopefully you could root out [forgive the pun, I had to do it] the IP address on your own or you would REALLY be out of luck)...
It seems I framed my illustration for the wrong timeframe--as if the crisis had already hit. In this case, it hasn't, AFAIK, correct? I wouldn't want to take the comparison too far anyway, it would render the discussion OT. Thinking of it in the light of pre-disaster, yes, I would prepare. In fact, when we thought Rita was going to cause us grief we certainly did prepare as best we could. Natural disasters are fickle things. You never know how much advanced notice (if any) that you will get of course--and then the accuracy of that notice is always questionable (as Rita didn't bother us one bit).
So, what are the specifics in the case of Taiwan? Are they currently being affected by the avian flu? If not, is it a given that they will be? If so, how long have they known? If they have had sufficient notice couldn't they have made equitable negotiations with Roche to obtain the needed quantities of the medicine they want/need? If the specifics point to their political leaders simply trying to get off cheap then I would concede, it would be wrong. It would also be reprehensible if their citizens were negatively impacted in either case, but we all know that governments don't always do what's best for the people...
It should be noted that Tamiflu is NOT a cure for the disease at any rate. It is simply the best option available. People may still die no matter how Taiwan obtains this drug...
And in the case of Taiwan and Roche, it's not like we're talking about the truly destitue, who lack the resources to prepare ahead of time, no matter how much warning they're given. It's not that Taiwan can't pay Roche's price; it's that they don't want to pay Roche's price. But they also don't want to pay the price of doing the research themselves. How can this possibly lead to a moral solution?
If that is the case, I have no answer for it and I would say your point is valid--they would simply be ripping Roche off. However, if Roche is unable to meet the demand for the drug then Taiwan wouldn't be totally in the wrong to produce it themselves and then finish negotiating licensing would they?
If, as you suggest, Roche is doing the work on behalf of everybody else, including Taiwan, then doesn't it follow that Taiwan should appreciate their efforts and contribute to them by paying for the results of those efforts?
Yes. They should come to an agreement with Roche. Again, though, if Roche cannot meet the demands for the drug in the required timeframe and Taiwan can produce it themselves, why not? Pay the bill later. If it helps keep the afflicted from dying, then take care of the immediate problem and work out an equitable payment to Roche. Life before money.
I appreciate the work that drug companies do in R&D and they should be compensated. However it is not like the Taiwanese government is raiding their facilities and stealing pills off of the shelves. In fact I would think it would be to Roche's advantage to license the formula to them and let them produce a generic. I would think that such a deal would be money in the bank for them. No production, QA, or distribution costs would be incurred. It would be all profit.
Yes, it would be inefficient for each country to invent their own wheel. But it doesn't follow that the one guy who did invent the wheel has to give it away free to anybody who needs or wants the wheel.
I don't expect a manufacturer to give away their "wheels" for free. But surely if they also own the patent they can license their design for a reasonable fee, particularly when it is going to save lives. Life before money--my governing principle in the discussion of course...
You also seem to be suggesting that any company that is motivated by profit instead of charity is acting immorally. That may be, but I don't see how it's relevant. Taiwan still isn't doing their own work, and they still aren't paying somebody else to do the work for them, but they still expect to get the work results for free
My only point was that the Taiwanese government has an obligation to safeguard its citizens, and that exploiting the work of others--rather than doing their own work to fulfill that obligation, and "stealing" that work rather than paying for it--doesn't seem like the "moral" thing to do.
From the article, Taiwan (among other countries) has applied to Roche for the right to copy the drug in question. They claim they will not market it commercially. They can produce it more quickly and less expensively then Roche. I would comment that in my view it's not a realistic solution to expect each country in need to reinvent the proverbial wheel in this respect. So what is the issue here? It sounds like Taiwan and Roche cannot come to terms on an acceptable licensing option? Are they still discussing it? In the meantime Taiwan goes forward in producing their variant of Tamiflu. I'm sure they can eventually work out some kind of deal, and Taiwan can pay them from the funds that you would have them use to reinvent the anti-viral.
Later in your post you mention expediency as opposed to moral correctness. My view would be that licensing deals can be made after the fact, if Taiwan and Roche act in good faith. In the meantime save some lives...
Let's take a look at the issue from the other side of the equation. Is it "moral" for Roche to refuse Taiwan (or other nations) the right to produce generic versions of it's drug that could possibly aid in averting a potentially devastating outbreak? The way the media frames it, this avian flu is supposedly going to wreak havoc on everyone. I'm personally not convinced that this will be the case since instances and deaths resulting from this virus in humans seems to be quite rare comparatively from my limited information on the matter.
A more expansive question along the same lines would be: Is it moral to withhold AIDS drugs from Africa because they cannot (or in some cases because corrupt politicians will not) pay up? Meanwhile, millions are infected and/or dying when they could be helped. This is morally reprehensible. Life commoditized. Our ethics do not seem to be keeping pace with our technical and medical advances.
What I'm opposed to here, more than even Taiwan's actions themselves, is the framing of these actions by the/. editor as morally correct, and to what I see as an unthinking approval of these actions on moral grounds by many of the commenters on this article. I can see these actions as being expedient perhaps, but morally correct? I'll need a lot more convincing on that score.
Many is the time that we see headlines and abstracts here (and elsewhere) framed in provocative or slanted ways--depending on the readers point of view. Regardless, in this particular instance I wish that the discussion had focused on the larger social & ethical issues rather then being reduced to name calling. It's mindless to tell someone to "**** off!" when they disagree. A waste of bandwidth, IMO. I would much rather have someone tell me why their position is right and mine is wrong then read their uninformed opinion about my personal life, habits, where they wish me to go, etc....
I digress. Well, let's take one more look at this. Let's bring it closer to home. This is hypothetical in my case but I am certain some folks lived through this in recent days: Suppose I was unfortunate enough to have my water supply ruined by a natural disaster. I have some bottled water in the house, but not enough to last. It is my moral imperative to take care of my family, and we need water. With cash in hand (or hidden in my shoe depending on the circumstances) I would of course head to the closest location I could to obtain more. I'm ready to pay for what I need but as it happens the shopkeeper has decided to charge $10 or more a bottle (in good price-gouging fashion) for what I used to spend $1. So I buy what I can with what I
MS Paint is an alternative for Photoshop, regardless of its simplicity and ugliness. Kids can use all of MS Paint's functions while many adults struggle to use Photoshop.
> The ad hominem virtually overwhelms any merit to be found
> in the more relevant (and quite valid) point against the
> life vs. property/money concept.
Uhhh, no it doesn't. It doesn't detract at all from the rest of the more relevant arguments.
The argument against life vs. property/money is the "more relevant" argument. My message was simply that this crucial social issue could be more effectively positioned without the personal attacks and/or anti-American sentiment. But you seemed to have missed that. I don't care if he (or the rest of the world) hates the US or the person he was replying too in this context, that is totally superfluous. Make the case for the real underlying cause of human suffering and do it without resorting to ad hominem and we might see a conversation worth reading.
He's not making an argument about the drug licensing issue. He's explaining the "the whole world hates us, why?" issue - which many Americans are completely incapable of understanding.
I disagree. Viewed in context, it was a response to the drug patent issue and opposed to the notion that so-called intellectual property is more important then human life. I don't care what country you reside in, this view should be opposed from my perspective. Again, focusing on this issue without invective and personal attacks would serve the argument far more effectively.
> The reference endorsing the 9/11 attacks is particularly
> appalling and counterproductive.
No it's not. We need more references to why people hate the USA - and American's seem to pay more attention when we link it to 911. It's the only way they might learn why people hate them, and stop doing things that make so many people hate them.
Yes, it is appalling in this context. Again, the pertinent argument is that life is important. Human life has a superior value and should not be commoditized. To say in effect, "no wonder foriegners want to kill large masses of American citizens because of corporate or governmental policies" does NOT support the posters argument FOR life over property. It is appalling to reasonable people that their are those pathetic inviduals that decide to make thier point by KILLING innocent victims.
By now, my point should be clear. This is an important social issue (life != property) that is totally ON TOPIC with the original post regarding Taiwan ignoring patents for the sake of it's citizenry. Let's talk about that and leave the "WE HATE YOU >:-(" for another day.
Only to a stupid asshat shit-for-brains yankee capitalist like you.
Jerks like you will put a price in dollars on fucking anything, even your grandmother.
And you find nothing wrong with this.
Ever wondered why people are willing to die hurling airliners into your skyscrapers????
Why is this being modded interesting/insightful? The ad hominem virtually overwhelms any merit to be found in the more relevant (and quite valid) point against the life vs. property/money concept.
The reference endorsing the 9/11 attacks is particularly appalling and counterproductive. How does that invective increase your position's superiority over the one you are attacking? It doesn't of course. It's simply a vicious, mean-spirited rant--when in fact you do have a worthy point to make--converting life to property/money is an atrocity.
Leave off the anti-American sentiment and personal attacks. Expand your argument on the salient point. It will bolster your position, and increase your credibility (and then the interesting/informative mods will be validated, IMO). Personal attacks are pointless in rational discussion and generally indicate a losing proposition in a debate.
Rational discussion, on/.? Whatever am I thinking?
ProTools is industry standard, period. No FOSS is going to conquer their market share. In fact, outside of the/. crowd, this will remain small. Lack of hardware support for most popular interfaces will doom it so, not to mention Linux's inflexibilities to the average user.
And there you have it. Lack of hardware support isn't the fault of F/OSS developers now is it? It would be wonderful if audio hardware manufacturers would open up thier specs to the F/OSS world but they generally don't seem inclined. Do you wonder why? I don't...
A friend in the industry tells me he's converted at least a dozen pro audio editors to ardour, leaving behind pro tools and logic for good.
Here's a nice article on a studio in Minnesota that moved to F/OSS. They use "Linux-based software at every stage of the music production cycle." In fact Mirror Image Studios has been credited with being a pioneer in this area. As far as I know, they're still happy with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice link, Mod Informative!
Apparently Sony would like to expand their "rights". If you move out of the country, don't forget to delete that music...
I am trying, for whatever it's worth. I just don't think it is an issue that has attained critical mass yet. Not enough people are affected yet or care enough to rein in those that want control of all the media, all the time, at all levels. Someday though. By then I hope it is not too late...
I'm not quite sure how it is relevant, but it has been dicussed numerous times before, and I believe pretty much everyone out there has their opinion on it already... Myself, I was convinced enough that I am firmly in the anti-copyright camp now. On that point, we disagree with you; let's just leave it at that.
I thought the point relevant because content producers should have some controls over the works they produce. There is no control when it becomes (literally) a free-for-all via P2P. At that point it is virtually Public Domain. I firmly believe however that copyright laws should be almost completely rewritten at this point, they are so far out of balance they've become a cultural burden now, IMO.
Well, I appreciate your time in discussing these issues with me today. It's been interesting, certainly. I guess if I could wish for one thing it would be increased awareness of these issues outside of the /. realm. I wish more people cared about the power-grabbing attempts by media companies and their cronies in government. Nothing is really going to change until then it seems.
But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept? Their fair use rights slowly eroded to nothing, their hardware controlled by the media or (worse) the government. Technical, legal, it makes no difference. The usefulness of the equipment and media they own becomes...useless.
See, I think that's where the problem lies. Everybody is just looking out for themselves. "Well I don't give a **** cuz I know how to crack anything." vs. the MPAA/RIAA & legislators like Orrin Hatch who thinks it is OK to destroy the hardware of so-called infringers.
There has to be some middle ground that can be reached where WE as consumers get to legally & technically retain control of the products we own and the ability of the content producer to maintain their rights (as in copyright).
I am a big supporter of Creative Commons licensing, but even that concept can't exist without copyright law. If your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...
Where is the balance here? Hopefully it can be found before the common man finds his gear DRM'd into the ground...
I think the answer to that question is in just about every other post. Because you are worse off after buying these products.
Tell me where I can buy a copy of a movie that will play on my linux system from my hardrive. Furthermore, if I'm paying for such a copy I want the codec that it's in and the file format to be documented and don't want to relly on one company to support it.
You can't buy such a thing. Hell you can't even buy such a thing that will go on a windows system.
Sure you can, Linspire sells a licensed DVD player for Linux. And, as far as Windows, there's PowerDVD among other software players that come bundled with the purchase of a system w/DVD drive or an OEM drive. I've never purchased either where a Windows player didn't come with the DVD drive. I must be missing your point on that...
Don't give me any such crap about stealing, I don't do p2p. I can see where people are getting quite frustrated. All I do is buy easily scratchable shiny plastic discs that I can't backup in overly bulky containers. It's no wonder people are sharing this stuff, I may go that route myself in the future.
I can see where they are getting frustrated too, but possibly for different reasons (DRM, EULA, stupid excessive copyright restrictions, etc.). Why aren't you allowed to backup DVDs? That is within your rights under fair use as I understand it (INL). Does the DMCA trump fair use in this regard? If so, why? I don't think I'm dishing out "crap" by asking these questions, or by pointing out the obvious conclusions of the "us vs. them" mentality in the P2P arena. Look, if you aren't using P2P for illegal purposes now, it is an easy bet that you wouldn't walk into a store and abscond out the door with a stack of discs, right? Then why would you want to "go that route" yourself someday via P2P? Ethically, what is the difference? Is it really a load of crap? No, it's just harder to catch and prosecute...at the moment.
Show me where folks like Orrin Hatch and the big media companies are advancing the arguments for further controlling OUR usage of OUR property without invoking copyright infringing P2P transactions. I don't think you'll find many instances where that isn't in the equation. My point is valid. They will continue to use this against all of us and the technologies that we freely employ today (for whatever purpose), who doubts that? It is the catch all excuse for taking more of our rights from us. Those who argue against this concept today (because they aren't getting caught...yet) are simply adding fuel to the power-grabbing fire. Like it or not.
Frogs in the cooks pot, he slowly turns up the heat and we don't even notice until we're collectively cooked...
In other words, you want to stay safe and within the system, and ask the rest to do the same for the sake of your safety.
I think the short answer to this would be, "why should I care?".
LOL
Good shot, except the point is: eventually it will affect you too, particularly when Digital Restrictions makes it way into the hardware levels. Then where will we be?
Sure I can ask (who said anything about "order"?). Why not? Your actions are going to have a negative impact on technology I use for legitimate purposes. Why can't I point this out? I don't agree with the current state of copyright law, I think it is massive overkill with its term of life+75 years, etc. I think it is an affront to creativity and it is robbing the culture, is that ethical? I don't think so, not by a long shot...
Regardless, it does not matter what I think of copyright law. Do I get to break it just because I disagree with it? Your answer seems to be yes. For a lot of us, that answer is no. I'm not trying to advance my supposed sense of morality on you, I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own. Slowly but surely this is the case, and this Sony rootkit & EULA issue is a prime example. Step back for a moment and disregard the ethical issues (which you've already done according to your comments) and just look at it from the chilling effects this disregard is going to have on technology & innovation. That affects all of us, no matter where you stand on fileswapping as an ethical issue. That was my point.
You can make the assertion that nobody is going to stop you, that you are going to do what you want with what you own no matter what anybody says (even the law). "You can pry my computer from my cold dead fingers", but that cuts the other way too: "When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P." How is that right? How is that fair?
'superior ethics'? You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies. If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?
Umm, tell us again who has a sense of superiority?
So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...
That is such a solid point. The whole issue is out of control. What if Sony-BMG is allowed to get away with this? What kind of precedent does it set? Will we now have to worry about every release from every media company that may follow the Sony model and employ their own variant of spy/malware-type Digital Restriction software on their CD or DVD?
An EULA for CD audio?! When I first read this stuff I could NOT believe what I was seeing! We saw the writing on the wall with CueCat (remember that nonsense?). Do we just get to expect that everything we buy will now include "instructions" on what we can & cannot do with the things that we purchase? This goes beyond killing innovation--heck, instead of selling us merchandise it seems as if we're just paying a leasing fee: the manufacturer still owns the product and gets to tell us how we can use it. Licensed audio CDs, subscription software. I think it is only the beginning. Can't wait until I am forced to buy only certain brands of gasoline for my car based on the EULA I signed when I purchase my next vehicle...
This all ties in with the honesty factor you mention. Sony (and others) simply use piracy as an excuse for this kind of awful behavior on their part. Please don't swap non-redistributable copyrighted files, if you do, you're ruining it for the rest of us!
As you can see from the links, I've been stewing over these disturbing trends for days. Years actually. Any excuse to control the consumer seems to be grabbed up immediately by the powers that be...
What does that mean? Seriously. What are you saying? Are you implying that RHEL is less stable then CentOS? Why? How? Are you saying that you dropped SuSE because Novell is putting it up against RH in the enterprise space?
No disrespect intended but I simply do not get the point you're trying to make here.
Thank you!
I probably have close to ten different distros loaded on my HDD at any given time, and the GUI I gravitate towards is KDE. Specifically KDE on SuSE. This announcement that they are moving it to Gnome is bad news. The SuSE desktop has to be the best among the lot, and YaST is (IMO) by far the best & most complete GUI-based configuration tool I've seen.
I rebuilt my sister's box--they had Windows ME on it (groan). In addition to the (groan again) WinME reinstallation, I also set up a SuSE partition on it for them and shipped it back. When they got it, they couldn't get their modem working under WinME so they called up and asked, "What about Linux?" I talked my sister through using YaST to set up the modem and they were back on-line within a few minutes.
Since then, she has decided to stick with SuSE altogether...
When I was contemplating which distro to put on their machine, it was down to a choice of Ubuntu or SuSE. Even though I regard Ubuntu as a fine distribution, SuSE won out. The well implemented KDE interface combined with YaST made it the ideal choice for introducing them to Linux. A MS Windows-like environment and killer config tools.
I didn't RTA, but I am hoping (as has been said here) that KDE continues to be implemented in OpenSuSE.
What is life without Amarok? ;-)
You hinted at the answer to that one, IPv6.
Crisis averted! :-)
It's not very difficult to set up a DNS. I predict we'd see lots of independant DNS servers springing up, similar to P2P, sharing IP addresses instead of music or videos.
Sounds reasonable I suppose. Distributed DNS with no one particular group in control. If that is the solution to the issue when politicians squabble over who is going to "control" the internet (whatever that is supposed to mean, the only thing I have ever surmised is that they mean "control" over the root servers) then the issue is moot.
Hmm, I don't recall this incident at the moment but I would think it would make the Bush Administration's new "War on Pornography" a lot easier for them if there were a .xxx TLD...
More to the point though, even if a new TLD was not added for whatever reason, there still wasn't a deliberate block of materials by the US govt. on-line, right? It's when actual blocking of sites for profit or politics comes into play at the ISP up to the root server level that we have a real problem I would think. Hence, the concept that SBC is going to charge or block Google (for profit) needs to be shot down pretty quickly...
And, pray tell, what are the consumers paying for? What in the world is wrong with bailing from them as your ISP if they start blocking the services you want/need? What do you need them for if you can't Google?
And another thing, who says Google is getting their pipes for free? I'm sure they pay a kings ransom for their leased lines.
So... neither the consumer nor Google is getting anything from SBC for free. So I'm staying right here on my high horse thank you. This CEO is just trying to generate revenue streams out of thin air. If he implements that particular scheme, then if I were a customer (which I am not), I would walk away. Let's see how long his consumer internet services revenues last then...
I don't hate SBC, I just think this line of thought for generating revenue is a really bad idea--as his level and on up...
1. he's a tool
2. and a child
but what else do you expect from a texan (and yes that is spelt in lower case.)
Oh Anonymous Coward thank you so much again for your insightful input, it has advanced the discussion of the issue at hand to new heights never before dreamed of. I think you may even be on the verge of solving world hunger!
Warmoth makes the best guitar necks in the world (which they do), hence SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
I live in Texas which means I must be ???, therefore SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
(sigh)
I disobeyed the first rule of Slashdot: Don't feed the trolls.
My mistake. I will desist. But please don't let that deter you--by all means, keep up your feeble attempts at taunting and/or insulting me if it makes you feel better; boosts your ego; or helps to lessen your need for mood-altering medications.
Better yet (if your limbs, so weakened by years of neglect of any physical activity other than typing, can support you) climb out of your step-momma's basement and go collect your welfare check so you can pay your ISP bill. Wouldn't want your sole purpose in life to be terminated...
See how utterly pointless it is to make attacks on people that you don't even know? No? That's ok, I understand. You'll be all right, just take some deep breaths and calm down. You've gotten yourself all worked up... There there now, see? I told you it would be ok. Here's your binky, just lay down there and take a nice long nap. That mean ol' guy talking badly about your friends at SBC won't bother you any more...
Actually, it's a company in the US that is trying to play this game, not the US Govt. Regardless, it did bring to mind how far this idea of the threat of blocking access as a revenue stream could extend were other parties to gain control of the root servers. To this date, I have never heard a complaint that the US govt. has tampered with the root servers to manipulate consumer access to any site. Would other entities (whomever they are) be as scrupulous in this matter were they to take over these servers. Or, would we see the scenarios I mentioned in my previous post: "Pay up or no DNS for you" or "we don't like your site, no DNS for you"?
Totally take UN and/or EU out of the scenario if you wish--substitute any organization you wish because that is not the main issue. The main issue is, "what will [insert organization name here] do if they gain control of the root servers?" Or, "why does [insert organization name here] want 'control' of these servers in the first place?"
We all know the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." If we find that [insert organization name here] is thinking along the lines of this SBC CEO then I think we could all agree that we should leave things as they are?
Why yes, yes I am, and by your spelling I see we must be in the same grade? Do you attend special ed by chance?
Thanks AC! I really appreciate your adding so much relevancy and insight to the issue being discussed. ad hominem is always so useful is working out problems in discussion.
(Why do I keep hearing Yoda's voice in the back of my mind repeating, "...begun have the clone wars" when this issue comes up?)
It certainly looks like this is the current direction and it's really frightening considering how dependent the current economy is on internet services. In my own little world I am conducting business transactions over the internet all the time. Obviously, corporations are doing so exponentially by comparison...
What is the solution to staving off this madness? Is there any comparable resolution to this in the real world that we could apply to the virtual domain? It's quite easy to identify problems, finding solutions is the more compelling challenge. (The quintessential example of this is talk radio. Always the complaining, and never any ideas on how to fix whatever it is they are whining about. I digress, but we see this occuring all the time.)
I don't have the answer myself, other then "just don't let it happen!" :-|
This is sure to set off a firestorm of US bashing, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this quote today was the interest in the UN and/or EU in wresting "control" of the internet from the hands of the US. Is this the type of thing we would see if these other parties gained control of the root servers? Pay up or no DNS for you??
Only in that case you (as a consumer) wouldn't have the option of punishing them for this outrageous behavior with your pocketbook by switching to another provider. You would just have to a) hope that the service provider (Google, Yahoo, whomever) would pay the piper; or b) you might simply be stuck if the service/information you wanted to access was deemed unacceptable and therefore all access to it via DNS was eliminated. (Hopefully you could root out [forgive the pun, I had to do it] the IP address on your own or you would REALLY be out of luck)...
So, what are the specifics in the case of Taiwan? Are they currently being affected by the avian flu? If not, is it a given that they will be? If so, how long have they known? If they have had sufficient notice couldn't they have made equitable negotiations with Roche to obtain the needed quantities of the medicine they want/need? If the specifics point to their political leaders simply trying to get off cheap then I would concede, it would be wrong. It would also be reprehensible if their citizens were negatively impacted in either case, but we all know that governments don't always do what's best for the people...
It should be noted that Tamiflu is NOT a cure for the disease at any rate. It is simply the best option available. People may still die no matter how Taiwan obtains this drug...
And in the case of Taiwan and Roche, it's not like we're talking about the truly destitue, who lack the resources to prepare ahead of time, no matter how much warning they're given. It's not that Taiwan can't pay Roche's price; it's that they don't want to pay Roche's price. But they also don't want to pay the price of doing the research themselves. How can this possibly lead to a moral solution?
If that is the case, I have no answer for it and I would say your point is valid--they would simply be ripping Roche off. However, if Roche is unable to meet the demand for the drug then Taiwan wouldn't be totally in the wrong to produce it themselves and then finish negotiating licensing would they?
If, as you suggest, Roche is doing the work on behalf of everybody else, including Taiwan, then doesn't it follow that Taiwan should appreciate their efforts and contribute to them by paying for the results of those efforts?
Yes. They should come to an agreement with Roche. Again, though, if Roche cannot meet the demands for the drug in the required timeframe and Taiwan can produce it themselves, why not? Pay the bill later. If it helps keep the afflicted from dying, then take care of the immediate problem and work out an equitable payment to Roche. Life before money.
I appreciate the work that drug companies do in R&D and they should be compensated. However it is not like the Taiwanese government is raiding their facilities and stealing pills off of the shelves. In fact I would think it would be to Roche's advantage to license the formula to them and let them produce a generic. I would think that such a deal would be money in the bank for them. No production, QA, or distribution costs would be incurred. It would be all profit.
Yes, it would be inefficient for each country to invent their own wheel. But it doesn't follow that the one guy who did invent the wheel has to give it away free to anybody who needs or wants the wheel.
I don't expect a manufacturer to give away their "wheels" for free. But surely if they also own the patent they can license their design for a reasonable fee, particularly when it is going to save lives. Life before money--my governing principle in the discussion of course...
You also seem to be suggesting that any company that is motivated by profit instead of charity is acting immorally. That may be, but I don't see how it's relevant. Taiwan still isn't doing their own work, and they still aren't paying somebody else to do the work for them, but they still expect to get the work results for free
My only point was that the Taiwanese government has an obligation to safeguard its citizens, and that exploiting the work of others--rather than doing their own work to fulfill that obligation, and "stealing" that work rather than paying for it--doesn't seem like the "moral" thing to do.
From the article, Taiwan (among other countries) has applied to Roche for the right to copy the drug in question. They claim they will not market it commercially. They can produce it more quickly and less expensively then Roche. I would comment that in my view it's not a realistic solution to expect each country in need to reinvent the proverbial wheel in this respect. So what is the issue here? It sounds like Taiwan and Roche cannot come to terms on an acceptable licensing option? Are they still discussing it? In the meantime Taiwan goes forward in producing their variant of Tamiflu. I'm sure they can eventually work out some kind of deal, and Taiwan can pay them from the funds that you would have them use to reinvent the anti-viral.
Later in your post you mention expediency as opposed to moral correctness. My view would be that licensing deals can be made after the fact, if Taiwan and Roche act in good faith. In the meantime save some lives...
Let's take a look at the issue from the other side of the equation. Is it "moral" for Roche to refuse Taiwan (or other nations) the right to produce generic versions of it's drug that could possibly aid in averting a potentially devastating outbreak? The way the media frames it, this avian flu is supposedly going to wreak havoc on everyone. I'm personally not convinced that this will be the case since instances and deaths resulting from this virus in humans seems to be quite rare comparatively from my limited information on the matter.
A more expansive question along the same lines would be: Is it moral to withhold AIDS drugs from Africa because they cannot (or in some cases because corrupt politicians will not) pay up? Meanwhile, millions are infected and/or dying when they could be helped. This is morally reprehensible. Life commoditized. Our ethics do not seem to be keeping pace with our technical and medical advances.
What I'm opposed to here, more than even Taiwan's actions themselves, is the framing of these actions by the /. editor as morally correct, and to what I see as an unthinking approval of these actions on moral grounds by many of the commenters on this article. I can see these actions as being expedient perhaps, but morally correct? I'll need a lot more convincing on that score.
Many is the time that we see headlines and abstracts here (and elsewhere) framed in provocative or slanted ways--depending on the readers point of view. Regardless, in this particular instance I wish that the discussion had focused on the larger social & ethical issues rather then being reduced to name calling. It's mindless to tell someone to "**** off!" when they disagree. A waste of bandwidth, IMO. I would much rather have someone tell me why their position is right and mine is wrong then read their uninformed opinion about my personal life, habits, where they wish me to go, etc....
I digress. Well, let's take one more look at this. Let's bring it closer to home. This is hypothetical in my case but I am certain some folks lived through this in recent days: Suppose I was unfortunate enough to have my water supply ruined by a natural disaster. I have some bottled water in the house, but not enough to last. It is my moral imperative to take care of my family, and we need water. With cash in hand (or hidden in my shoe depending on the circumstances) I would of course head to the closest location I could to obtain more. I'm ready to pay for what I need but as it happens the shopkeeper has decided to charge $10 or more a bottle (in good price-gouging fashion) for what I used to spend $1. So I buy what I can with what I
Tux Paint is sooo much cooler.
Get it? Tux... Penguin... cooler?
sorry...
Uhhh, no it doesn't. It doesn't detract at all from the rest of the more relevant arguments.
The argument against life vs. property/money is the "more relevant" argument. My message was simply that this crucial social issue could be more effectively positioned without the personal attacks and/or anti-American sentiment. But you seemed to have missed that. I don't care if he (or the rest of the world) hates the US or the person he was replying too in this context, that is totally superfluous. Make the case for the real underlying cause of human suffering and do it without resorting to ad hominem and we might see a conversation worth reading.
He's not making an argument about the drug licensing issue. He's explaining the "the whole world hates us, why?" issue - which many Americans are completely incapable of understanding.
I disagree. Viewed in context, it was a response to the drug patent issue and opposed to the notion that so-called intellectual property is more important then human life. I don't care what country you reside in, this view should be opposed from my perspective. Again, focusing on this issue without invective and personal attacks would serve the argument far more effectively.
> The reference endorsing the 9/11 attacks is particularly > appalling and counterproductive.
No it's not. We need more references to why people hate the USA - and American's seem to pay more attention when we link it to 911. It's the only way they might learn why people hate them, and stop doing things that make so many people hate them.
Yes, it is appalling in this context. Again, the pertinent argument is that life is important. Human life has a superior value and should not be commoditized. To say in effect, "no wonder foriegners want to kill large masses of American citizens because of corporate or governmental policies" does NOT support the posters argument FOR life over property. It is appalling to reasonable people that their are those pathetic inviduals that decide to make thier point by KILLING innocent victims.
By now, my point should be clear. This is an important social issue (life != property) that is totally ON TOPIC with the original post regarding Taiwan ignoring patents for the sake of it's citizenry. Let's talk about that and leave the "WE HATE YOU >:-(" for another day.
Jerks like you will put a price in dollars on fucking anything, even your grandmother.
And you find nothing wrong with this.
Ever wondered why people are willing to die hurling airliners into your skyscrapers????
Why is this being modded interesting/insightful? The ad hominem virtually overwhelms any merit to be found in the more relevant (and quite valid) point against the life vs. property/money concept.
The reference endorsing the 9/11 attacks is particularly appalling and counterproductive. How does that invective increase your position's superiority over the one you are attacking? It doesn't of course. It's simply a vicious, mean-spirited rant--when in fact you do have a worthy point to make--converting life to property/money is an atrocity.
Leave off the anti-American sentiment and personal attacks. Expand your argument on the salient point. It will bolster your position, and increase your credibility (and then the interesting/informative mods will be validated, IMO). Personal attacks are pointless in rational discussion and generally indicate a losing proposition in a debate.
Rational discussion, on /.? Whatever am I thinking?
And there you have it. Lack of hardware support isn't the fault of F/OSS developers now is it? It would be wonderful if audio hardware manufacturers would open up thier specs to the F/OSS world but they generally don't seem inclined. Do you wonder why? I don't...
Here's a nice article on a studio in Minnesota that moved to F/OSS. They use "Linux-based software at every stage of the music production cycle." In fact Mirror Image Studios has been credited with being a pioneer in this area. As far as I know, they're still happy with it.